Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Dnyaneshwar B. Ganwat, was employed as a watchman by the respondent, Karyakari Abhiyanta Chaskaman Prakalp Vibhag (Irrigation Department, Government of Maharashtra), from 21 April 1991 to 21 April 1992. His services were terminated by an oral order. He raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court, Pune, as Reference (IDA) No.302 of 1993. The Labour Court rejected the reference solely on the ground that the respondent was not an 'industry' as defined under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Executive Engineer, State of Karnataka v. Soma Shetty (1997 II CLR 387). The petitioner challenged this award by filing a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The petitioner's counsel argued that the Irrigation Department is an industry, citing the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Executive Engineer, Yavatmal Medium Project Division v. Anant Yadav Murate (1998 (3) Mh.L.J. 897), which held that the Irrigation Department is an industry and that Soma Shetty was per incuriam. The High Court examined the impugned award and noted that the only ground for rejection was the non-industry finding. The court observed that in Anant Yadav Murate, Justice Rebello had considered the earlier Supreme Court judgment in Des Raj v. State of Punjab (AIR 1988 SC 1182), which held that the Irrigation Department of Punjab is an industry. The court in Anant Yadav Murate held that Soma Shetty was per incuriam as it did not consider Des Raj. The High Court agreed with this reasoning and held that the Irrigation Department of the Government of Maharashtra is an industry. Consequently, the court set aside the Labour Court's award and remitted the matter back to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication on merits, in accordance with law. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Definition of Industry - Section 2(j) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Irrigation Department as Industry - The issue was whether the Irrigation Department of the Government of Maharashtra is an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court had rejected the reference relying on Executive Engineer, State of Karnataka v. Soma Shetty, holding that the Irrigation Department is not an industry. However, the High Court, following the earlier Supreme Court judgment in Des Raj v. State of Punjab and the Bombay High Court decision in Executive Engineer, Yavatmal Medium Project Division v. Anant Yadav Murate, held that the Irrigation Department is an industry. The judgment in Soma Shetty was held to be per incuriam as it did not consider Des Raj. The matter was remitted to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication on merits. (Paras 1-5) B) Precedent - Per Incuriam - Article 141 Constitution of India - Binding Nature of Supreme Court Decisions - The High Court considered whether the Supreme Court judgment in Soma Shetty was per incuriam. Relying on the Full Bench decision in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India, the court noted that what is binding under Article 141 is the law declared by the Supreme Court. Since Soma Shetty did not consider the earlier binding precedent in Des Raj, it was held per incuriam. The court followed Des Raj, which held that the Irrigation Department is an industry. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Irrigation Department of the Government of Maharashtra is an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned award of the Labour Court, and remitted the matter back to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Definition of industry under Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Per incuriam judgment
- Binding precedent under Article 141 of Constitution of India
